Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Vodac121 t1_jdue2d3 wrote

Well today is a weird day as a card holder of what I thought was my cute, lil obscure bank.

56

MajesticWaterBuffalo t1_jduky3v wrote

200B in toasters is still 200B, even if the company is 300B in debt.

I could be wrong, but wasn't their main problem not that they invested a lot of their money in long term bonds and couldn't afford to wait for them to mature?

23

LordOfTheDerp t1_jdusoff wrote

Wish FCB would give me more than .03 interest rate on my savings account before they bought this albatross.

49

SamurottX t1_jdv3r6e wrote

Yes, it was mainly a short term liquidity problem. So as long as the purchasing bank has the ability to cover things in the short term, then it's all good. There's still a risk that things hit the fan, but a larger bank would be able to weather a larger run on their deposits.

17

127-0-0-1_1 t1_jdvu1b9 wrote

How do you think they’re going to get a higher interest rate for you? This is practically free money. Not only do they get 16.5b in arbitrage if they can maintain depositor liquidity, but the latter is extremely easy now that the fed is offering collateralized loans for federal bond assets at cost.

5

Milyardo t1_jdw9up2 wrote

The assets of SVB are good. SVB failed only because it wasn't liquid enough to prevent a run. The only reason to be concerned if is First Citizens doesn't balance long term assets like SVB's bonds with short term ones or cash.

4

FatherDotComical t1_jdwryr2 wrote

I was sitting here looking at the little dumpy homey location down the street from me (and to be honest they all look like they were decorated by grandma's and never updated) and I was like "You?! You can buy that?!"

6

SuicideNote t1_jdy78wu wrote

They have dump of an aging headquarters. They once had a plan to build a bank tower in downtown like everyone else but that never materialized.

It's a shame because they demolished a historic building in downtown for the tower they never built.

2

sciguy52 t1_jdymrrk wrote

And yet further up the reddit news thread it said it was going to cost $20 billion for the serfs....er I mean "the other banks" to pay for the bail out because SVB did NOT have enough assets.

0

dclxvi616 t1_jdyz482 wrote

The two statements are not mutually exclusive: "SVB did not have enough liquid assets," & "The assets of SVB are good."

It's like if you put all your cash into savings bonds that you cannot redeem for a 1-year holding period and don't leave yourself anything to buy groceries with. You are financially ruined in the moment, but your bonds are still good assets.

3